Pages

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Seminar in Uppsala

Yesterday, I gave a seminar at the Ångstrom Laboratory in Uppsala. That means I now know two cities in Sweden! The Ångstrom Laboratory is a very modern building with lots of glass. In contrast to PI's building however, the colors are warm, and the interior is human friendly, though it has a certain lack of areas with blackboards. See, there's always something to complain.

A smart young man in the audience raised his hand and said that Smolin in his book claims the observation of an energy dependent dispersion in gamma ray bursts would outrule string theory, but now I was saying it wouldn't. Indeed, it wouldn't. The day will come when my hair stands upright at the mere mention of Smolin and his book. Please read this post and comments for clarification.

The audience was very attentive and in the cases when I forgot something relevant for later understanding, somebody would promptly ask the right question. I was very impressed. I will be doing some traveling with this talk: In October I will be in Potsdam for a seminar, and in late November in Frankfurt for a colloquium. Frankfurt wins the award for the lowest maintenance seminar schedule ever. If you have a desire for hearing a talk about the phenomenology of quantum gravity, let me know :-)

That’s the gist of the on going debate regarding many of the theories, as to whether they be a TOE or a TOA. That is are they ‘Theories of Everything’ or rather ‘Theories of Anything’? It’s not only string theory(s) that are subject to scrutiny in this respect. Many such theories are correct aether way you look at it; sorry that should read either way :-)

If string theory is aether theory, then it suggests we're making a rather fundamental mistake. I wonder might that be?

I wouldn’t cliam to have a clue and if I did I’d be banging on PI’s doors :-) None the less, when something can’t be proven to show as being one way or another is not necessarily indicative that it then be wrong. That is as Godel demonstrated with mathematics not totally able to being definitive within the limits of its axioms. This has it be incomplete, rather than necessarily incorrect.

There are many that would argue that this limitation exists for physics as it does for mathematics. This doesn’t preclude one from expanding our knowledge about the physical world, as it only precludes ever having a complete knowledge of it. This also is consistent within the confines of currently accepted theories, such as Quantum Mechanics.

Zephir: As I already explained in several earlier posts, there is as today no derivation of a modified dispersion relation from either string theory or loop quantum gravity, thus it isn't possible to draw conclusions about the fundamental theory from it whatsoever. There are in both cases models with a modified dispersion, but these are not derivations and there are in both cases people who don't find them very plausible. See also the second to last slide of my talk. Best,

Yes, it is, and I'm honestly tired of this string theory bashing because you could equally well bash plenty of other approaches that are to date non-falsifiable. It just happens to have become fashionable to jump up and yell "non-falsifiable" at the mention of string theory because meanwhile string theory is "established," so criticizing it must be "anti-establishment," right?

And yes, we're making a rather fundamental mistake, that is assuming the quantization procedure itself is fundamental (in particular: remains the same at all scales). I don't know what the next breakthrough will look like, but my guess would be it will come from the foundations of quantum mechanics (if they would just stop discussing Bell's theorem for once). Best,

1) I don't see any explicit reference to Non commutative Geometry (or I'm missing something?). Why? There to a modified dispersion relation is predicted. Check this nice review for example arXiv:0906.2913.

2) Have you considered writing a review paper about this? It will have a big success.

/*..if string theory is aether theory, then it suggests we're making a rather fundamental mistake..*/Such stance depends on observational perspective (as everything in AWT). We can perceive reintroduction of Aether as return to the roots of physics - but we can say too, string field or string net models are the approximations of unparticle model of nested density fluctuations in the similar way, like spin network of LQG and we can continue further in development of formal models.

In AWT all theories are interconnected mutually into dense nested foam, so that the reconciliation of existing theories, rather then finding mistakes is the correct strategy (not only in science, but in politics, too).

We should realize, general theories can never replace particular theories completely due the generalized uncertainty principle: the more generally true some theory is, the more remote is from everyday human perspective and the more difficult is to derive exact predictions from it.

/*..if space-time is not fundamental, then the early phases of the universe might not be describable by a geometry at all..*/Aether theory apparently doesn't remove space and time concepts from physics - it just makes them implicit. In AWT every space-time is formed by curvature density gradient of another space-time, recursively. It's basically fractal geometrodynamics.

/*..Freeman Dyson: .. no inconsistency can arise from using both theories, because any differences between their predictions are physically undetectable...*/

If we would use ALL POSTULATES of both theories consequently, such result is not possible. We can use subset of postulates from both theories, but after then we face different theories, then the original relativity and quantum mechanics.

For example cosmological constant problem cannot be solved by combination of quantum mechanics and relativity, because they differ by factor by a factor of 10E+120. It's apparent, every combination, which violates result of QM or GR is inconsistent with both QM, both GR and here's no way around it.

Arun: Basically, yes, I think there must be other, more general, procedures that yield a quantization in the areas that we have experimental tests, but possibly not in extreme limits. Not sure if you'd still want to call them quantization then.

..all the present notions of quantization explicitly or implicitly require the notion of time..In the fall of 1940, Feynman received a telephone call from John Wheeler (Feynman's thesisadvisor) at the Graduate College in Princeton, in which Wheeler said that he knew why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass. "Why?" asked Feynman, and Wheeler replied:"Because they are all one and the same electron."

Inside of inhomogeneous Universe all thinkable sizes and energy levels of bosons and fermions can exist in principle - but because we can observe only small sample of space-time, we can see only limited number of different fermions and energy levels of bosons in every piece of matter.

If I thought I could justify it under my budget I would ask in a instant. However, first we would have to alter the title from “Phenomenological Quantum Gravity” to something like, “The Evidence To Believe We Fall Down Due Do The Influence Of Small Things”. Anyway I could almost assure it would be the most uninterrupted talk you have ever given, resultant of this group presenting being a greater challenge then even ones grandmother. :-)

/*..I'm honestly tired of this string theory bashing because you could equally well bash plenty of other approaches that are to date non-falsifiable. It just happens to have become fashionable to jump up and yell "non-falsifiable" at the mention of string theory because meanwhile string theory is "established," so criticizing it must be "anti-establishment...*/Honestly, I don't believe in "just-happened" events very much. Can we interpret this sudden alliance of string and LQG theorists as the result of the recent situation, when GRB090510 photon controversy revealed, quantum gravity theory can offer no testable predictions in the same way, like string theory?

There is no "sudden alliance" between string theorists and LQG researchers, as there was no enmity earlier. This is all a completely nonsensical story that has been made up by people who have probably never in their life entered a department of physics.

The only thing the discussion about time delays in GRBs "reveals" is the unfortunate amount of misinformation that the general public has been subject to. I have pointed out many times that these effects are *not* derived from an underlying fundamental theory, but phenomenological models, for links see eg this comment. The world would certainly be a better place if people would read my blog instead of New Scientist, but in the end it's their choice.

In any case, your "interpretation" of a "sudden revelation" is intellectually on the same level as complaining Obama said he'd make the oil price fall and cure mankind from racial bias, but now he doesn't. What this "reveals" is that you have believed in made up stories and now you're looking for somebody else to blame.

Zephir: I would be very surprised would you find anybody working on LQG who would call Lee Smolin their "leader." I don't know what you read in Lee's book, but at least my version doesn't contain anything along the lines that string theorist avoid LQG researchers on the corridors or fight with them over the muffins or the last piece of chalk or whatever you guys think physicists fight over.

/*..he also has a specific model for space and the elementary particles..*/Schiller's strand model of particles is simmilar to Rovelli & Bilson-Thompson & Smolin knot models of quantum gravity.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645.800-you-are-made-of-spacetime.html

/*..would you find anybody working on LQG who would call Lee Smolin their "leader." ..*/Why not? Smolin himself calls a "coinventor of LQG" and he was one of LQG's founders in the early 1980s (along with Ashtekar and Rovelli, among others) - so that media has seized on Smolin as a kind of icon and spokesman of LQG.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html

Maybe we could analyze, which person was a most often member of collaboration in LQG publications to quantify the leadership.

/*..string theorist avoid LQG researchers on the corridors or fight with them over the muffins or the last piece of chalk or whatever....*/Don't make an idiots from other people, Bee - and you'll be depressed less often, I promise. Physicists doesn't fight for muffins, but grant support.

Zephir: It is a very different thing to be a founder of a research direction and somebody whose work is very influential and to be a "leader" of other people. The English word "leader" btw translates into the German word "Führer." Indeed, the media has seized Smolin as an "icon and spokesman" of a whole research field. But did anybody ask the people who work on that field what they think about that? Well, I did. And those who I asked were not very pleased. It's not Lee's fault this has happened, it's just that the pop sci press generally copes badly with diversity.

It adds to this that Lee's book has been badly misrepresented as being an attack on string theory, whereas it is rather a criticism of the today dominating tactics in the academic system. HEP physics is a particularly good example, but there are others. Unfortunately, many string theorists felt personally attacked. Just consider the book had been written by a sociologist. Do you think it would have evoked any reaction?

Zephir: I don't have to make idiots out of other people, most of them do that already themselves. Scroll back up and you will see that you have invented some sort of enmities and allies in subfields of physics, and some "sudden revelation" that reflects your own late insight. Yes, researchers are faced with a limited amount of grants and positions, but that doesn't make us enemies, it makes us competitors.

Zephir: How can I possibly make it any clearer? The phenomenological models used to make the predictions are NOT derived from the underlying theory. They do NOT follow from the axioms of that theory. Consequently, you can't use them to falsify these axioms.

/*..that you have invented some sort of enmities...*/"Enmities" or "enmity" are your own words in this context - not mine. You manipulated me into this vision of relationship between scientists, not me.

Well. At the moment, when some LQG theorists realized, they've nothing to offer concerning testable predictions to the rest of society in the same way, like string theorists, they stoped to behave like competetitors.

Zephir: You just wrote that you think it is not possible there was no enmity. Who exactly are the "some LQG theorists" who allegedly realized what? You are the one who just realized what I have told you several years already.

/*... correct version should have been the "conjectured underlying theory"...*/

Do you mean "phenomenological models used to make the predictions are NOT conjectured underlying theory"?

This sentence doesn't makes a very much sense for me. Anyway, it's clear, the obstinate usage of "underlying theory" phrase makes a back door for You at the case, when situation would reverse for the benefit of LQG again.

Because if we doesn't use axioms of "underlying" theory, it's evident, phenomenological model has nothing to do with it at all. Such "phenomenological model" is just another quite new theory, fitted intentionally to observed results.

/*..you are the one who just realized what I have told you several years already...*/I realized it before month already in discussion about GRB090510 photon controversy. But now I realized too, you're not very willing to give up the usage of the "underlying theory" phrase.

Do you mean "phenomenological models used to make the predictions are NOT conjectured underlying theory"? This sentence doesn't makes a very much sense for me.

Anyway, it's clear, the obstinate usage of "underlying theory" phrase makes a back door for You at the case, when situation would reverse for the benefit of LQG again.

Because if we doesn't use axioms of "underlying" theory, it's evident, phenomenological model has nothing to do with it at all. Such "phenomenological model" is just another quite new theory, fitted intentionally to observed results.

It's all just a politics - not strictly logical science, Bee.

That can't possibly be so hard to understand, can it? The sentence is: "The phenomenological models used to make the predictions are NOT derived from the (conjectured) underlying theory." I have put in the word "conjectured" in the right place for your convenience. As I have told you above and in various other places, the models are motivated by and inspired from some approaches towards quantum gravity, but this shouldn't be confused with being a derivation.

What you test with testing a phenomenological model if it is not derived from one of the conjectured underlying theories is the phenomenological model and its axioms. Period. That is exactly what I have said numerous times. It is summarized in what you see in the second to last slide of my talk. The arrow back up towards the underlying theory doesn't work if the arrow from the theory to the effective model doesn't exist.

What the models I have been working on in particular are testing is not the full theory itself, but some aspects of it. Eg the existence of extra dimensions, a fundamentally finite resolution, deviations from Lorentz invariance, etc. If that was successful, we could learn something from it, even though it wouldn't put The TOE in our hands.

If you think science is or has ever been strictly logical it's time to wake up.

Similar, but they are competing. Schiller claims somewhere in his pdf that his model is superior: he claims that he has models for all fermions and all bosons and that the model explains the gauge groups. His claims are really strong, such as no Higgs, no superparticles, no measurebale quantum gravity effects. The whole is somewhat anti-establishment.

/*..predictions are NOT derived from the (conjectured) underlying theory**/Conjectured by whom? If LQG theory is supposed to remain underlying theory for various phenomenological models, then the predictions of these models ARE CONSIDERED to be derived from LQG theory, not vice-versa. And you shouldn't very surprised, if occasional failure of such predictions would be CONSIDERED as a failure of supposed underlying LQG theory accordingly.

It's tic-for-tat: if you want to keep LQG related to various ad-hoced phenomenological models, LQG should be prepared to take responsibility for their failures.

/*..If you think science is or has ever been strictly logical it's time to wake up...*/Science is logical and your stance is understandable easily in light of political maneuvering: You're trying to keep the LQG as connected with various ad-hoced models, as possible, whereas you're trying to separate it from occasional failures of these models - that's all.

/*..His claims are really strong, such as no Higgs, no superparticles, no measurable quantum gravity effects...*/Such claims are usually a first nail to coffin of every theory. Every theorist tends to deny the concepts developed by another theorists, which usually differ by observational perspective only. Wouldn't it better to maintain theory, which can support & reconcile them all?

Zephir: Your attempts to psychoanalyze my motives are as ridiculous as off the target. You should at least find out where my stakes are. I have no particular reason to keep LQG more "connected" to these pheno modelds than string theory, or other approaches to qg. I'm not trying to "separate" them for political reasons, but simply because there IS no derivation of one from the other. I am telling you the facts, and you invent a story according to which I am playing a political game?

Conjectured by whom?

Huh? I am talking about researchers working on and believing in one particular approach towards qg being the right one.

If LQG theory is supposed to remain underlying theory for various phenomenological models, then the predictions of these models ARE CONSIDERED to be derived from LQG theory, not vice-versa.

I have explained above repeatedly and very clearly what the connection is between the models and the underlying theory and what it isn't. I have said explicitly numerous times there is no derivation. How often do I have to repeat that? If you consider something to be derived if in fact it isn't, that's your problem.

And you shouldn't very surprised, if occasional failure of such predictions would be CONSIDERED as a failure of supposed underlying LQG theory accordingly.

Well, people should not "consider" conclusions that are de facto wrong.

It's tic-for-tat: if you want to keep LQG related to various ad-hoced phenomenological models, LQG should be prepared to take responsibility for their failures.

What I want is to see a derivation. There is nothing wrong with ad hoc models. One just shouldn't sell them for what they are not. Best,

/*.. there IS no derivation of one from the other..*/So if u still believe, these models MAY be derived from LQG as "underlying theory", what's wrong on situation, when for example Lubos considers the very same thing and interprets the failure of these models as a failure of LQG, wheareas you're not?

His and yours stance appear as quite symmetrical from this perspective - but Motl's one is more consequential.

I'm not expecting, more detailed analysis of how scientists are thinking and/or how contemporary science is working will be pleasant for you personally, but it still may be interesting or even usefull for other readers. You're doing public servis.

Zephir: In this case it has been me who has deleted some of your comments. I have told you at least a dozen times that I won't tolerate links that advertise your own site. It's bad enough you're constantly advertising your own theory of something even though evidently nobody is interested. You seem to be very slow in understanding this, so I will repeat it one more time: every time you drop a link to your site, your comment will be deleted. Clear enough now?

Zephir: LQG and String Theory both have so far failed to provide a derivation of a testable phenomenological model. That doesn't mean there will never be a derivation, and that doesn't mean a failure of the theory itself. It is just a presently unsatisfactory situation.

/*...even though evidently nobody is interested...*/Let the people decide, what they're interested about, or not - OK? You have no evidence for your claim - whereas I can say safely, many people here are evidently interested in keeping public ideas in quiet as long, as possible. Don't tell me, single link will increase length of this discussion (which contains many links to other private sites anyway).

You're just illustrating the sad state of contemporary theoretical physics, which replaced contemplative work by travelling around various seminars. Politicking, censorship and hoked up excuses won't help you from long term perspective, Bee.

/*.. LQG and String Theory both have so far failed to provide a derivation of a testable phenomenological model...it is just a presently unsatisfactory situation...*/LQG is 23 years (one generation) old, string theory is 42 years (two generations) old. Do you consider such "present" situation normal?

/*..this has nothing to do with censorship at all..*/Of course it has. It's the censorship of the same category, like censorship of Galileo's books by Catholic Church. You just cannot take competition of foreign ideas, that's the whole story.

This blogs is yours, but my posts there were mine. While you have full right to delete any post from your blog without further reasoning (of your ad hoced rules), I have full right to call such behavior a censorship, that's all.

Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

/*..I am not interested, Bee is not interested - and that's enough..*/Your stance is easy to understand, as it has its own historical analogy, too. When Galileo demonstrated his evidence of heliocentric model by shadows of lunar craters, his opponents simply refuted to have look at Moon by his telescope.

They "weren't interested" about Galileo's evidence just because his model could explain things, which their model couldn't.

/*..that's just a question of courtesy and respect. Is this so hard to understand?...*/I believe, I can understand your motivations quite well and I will not continue here in discussion about Aether theory here, if you're so nervous about it. But I still don't disagree, that your stance is just a "question of courtesy and respect" - this is just another evasion. It's mainly a question of informational monopoly, what is discussed here by now.

The understanding of deepest connections of reality isn't difficult - it just requires to remain unbiased, consequential and perceptive to details. In particular, it requires to call things by their very own names.

Zephir, if by aether you mean something like Irving Segal's model, you could be right I think. Segal had long distant atronomical spectral lines with a conformal unispace instead of the local region spectral lines with the Minkowski spacetime. John Baez and Bertram Kostant talked about it a little in obituaries for Seagal (they both had him for a PhD advisor).

Sounds like a easy solution, yet I think the authors are also concerned with the transparency of this blog and have perhaps considered the readers they attract can discern for themselves. That’s why for instance I’m most suspicious of blogs where the comments are filtered.

No I think it is better they have chosen the ground rules, where relevance and civility form to be the qualifiers for comments. It is true however that with the relevancy aspect that Bee has been somewhat forgiving, yet I suspect she has her own reasons, with one of them perhaps having to do with what happens when you give someone enough rope:-)

/*..if by aether you mean something like Irving Segal's model...*/Nope, aether was defined as a massive environment, composed of particles by Rene Descartes. Everything else is just ad-hoced formal model, which may correspond Aether concept, but it needn't to do so.

Could you point me to the text(s) where Rene Decartes describes the aether as having a particle nature. I have read much of Descartes’ works and this background is always described as having a homogenous or holistic in nature, like an ocean or sea :-) Essentially Descartes was a dualist in his metaphysics, as was Plato, with David Bohm as representing the contemporary extension of the ontology.

Let the people decide, what they're interested about, or not - OK? You have no evidence for your claim - whereas I can say safely, many people here are evidently interested in keeping public ideas in quiet as long, as possible. Don't tell me, single link will increase length of this discussion (which contains many links to other private sites anyway).

What evidence might I have that people are more interested in what I write than what you write? Let me see. How many people read your blog compared to my blog? If people are so interested in what you write, why do you bother spamming my blog with your comments and links?

Regarding your recurring accusation of "censorship." Amazingly, you still fail to see what I have told you so many times, so I will tell you one more time: I do not tolerate if commenters dump links to their own site. I know as well as you how Google works and if I leave the link standing it's as much as an approval from me.

Literally every other commenter on this blog understood this very rapidly. For a recent example, see commenter called "Panta Rei" in this thread. He (or she) had 2 comments deleted before he omitted off-topic links to his own blog. What's preventing this basic piece of information to enter your brain?

You don't have to like our comment policy. If you don't, feel free to go. If you want to stay, you'll have to play according to our rules.

You just cannot take competition of foreign ideas, that's the whole story.

Zephir, did it occur to you that I have not deleted your "foreign ideas" even though it would have taken me just a click on a trashbin icon? Let me recommend however if you want your ideas to compete you publish them in a journal instead of commenting here. Good luck. Best,

How much about the present state of the world do you consider "normal" and how do you define "normal?" Our world has seen an incredible change within the last 100 years. What makes you assume that progress in physics will continue to proceed in equal or increasing pace forever?

I have no basis to tell what is "normal" or what not, and since I don't think anybody can sensibly do that, the one and only thing that we can do is to do the best we can. The current system does not provide an ideal setting for that, I have commented on that many times elsewhere. So, yes I think progress could be faster. Yet it is far from clear how fast it could possibly be. What is the scientific basis for putting a 20 year timeout on research programs to prove their promise? (That's a rhetoric question.) Best,

Hi Rhys, Phil: The reason why I've been "forgiving" as you say is that I was hoping to achieve some kind of understanding, or at least simple kindness, that would result in a behavior less annoying for our readers. I am reluctant to delete comments unless unavoidable for the simple reason that people have invested time into them. The question is however what is the smaller evil, wasting their time by deleting their comment, or wasting our readers' time by clogging the comment sections with self-celebratory off-topic babble? Since Zephir shows little sign of contributing in a more constructive way I don't think I've made much progress with appealing to his understanding. Any advice? Best,

/*..how many people read your blog compared to my blog..*/How many people read Honecker's newspapers in former communist East Germany? Does it say something about their real preferences? Is it possible to publish article about Aether in mainstream journals like Nature or Science? Mainstream physics is sectarian society from bottom level to the top - but the main problem is, it even doesn't realize it, or it pretends so, at least.

/*...Since Zephir shows little sign of contributing in a more constructive way...*/Are you kidding??? It's just you, who deleted all my constructive posts regarding Aether theory, including these, which didn't contained any links to my site.

Zephir: The only posts of yours that I've deleted are those that contained links to your blog, the rest is your paranoia. In any case, since that apparently wasn't clear enough: your comments that do nothing else but advocating your own theory of something are not constructive for anything we're discussing on this blog.

In any case, that's enough. If the only thing you can do is complain, you are not welcome here.

/*..your comments that do nothing else but advocating your own theory...*/Do you know my explanation of GRB090510 photon controversy? Try to show me, how to present it here in "politically correct" way.

/*..Publish a paper, post reference..*/Well, but this means, no new ideas can appear in discussion bellow your posts, thus resigning creativity and principle of dialectic discussion at all.

In addition, when you're allowing only ideas presented somewhere in scope of standard science channels, you're demonstrating singular behavior of sectarian community, which is unable collect ideas from outside. After then the whole flow of information is unidirectional only, like at the example of black hole.

I know about this aspect of contemporary scientific community quite well, just because I've a general theory about it.

Zephir: It is actually worse than that. I am not only not interested in new ideas, I am specifically not interested in new ideas from pseudonymous commenters on my blog who repeatedly compare themselves to Galileo, scream "censorship" because they don't bother to read as much as our comment policies, show zero interest in my writing, but post an endless amount of self-advertisements and actually think they are entitled to that. But hey, since you have a theory of physicists, what am I telling you. You already know anyway. Now since you have figured that I'm a sectarian elite asshole, who isn't even remotely interested in your theory of whatever, why don't you stop wasting my time? There are plenty of blogs out there where you can go and complain about me.

/*..show zero interest in my writing...*/Try to be a bit more realistic, Bee. Why I should be interested about your work? It deals with theory, which brings not testable predictions over one generation of existence, logical explanations the less and I even know, why it behaves so. Your flat-land theory can never describe complex turbulent motion of photons inside of gamma ray solitons in comprehensible way.

With full respect to your bright IQ, you're mathematician and I'm interested about physics, real things, i.e. matter of reality - not about ad-hoced byproducts of human imagination.

/*...why don't you stop wasting my time..*/I assure you, you're not wasting your time - you're helping to understand conceptual problems of contemporary science to another people and I appreciate your apparent patience in this point.

Realistically, Zephir, you didn't read a single of my papers. And probably not even my blog posts. In any case, I don't expect the whole world to share my interests; that would be pretty much a disaster. In return, please accept that I have clearly stated my disinterest in your work, and would appreciate if you would not clog my comment sections with further contributions that are not commentaries on what I wrote. Thanks,

It's evident, intuitive and formal understanding of physics will diverge. You're like theorist, who is trying to formulate turbulence by equation just because he doesn't (want to) know, it's impossible.

Even at the case, when he can reach some particular result, he wouldn't able to make any meaningful conclusion about it due its complexity and to exchange it with the rest of society.

And vice-versa, my intuitive explanations of the same process won't help you in derivation of its formal description in a bit. We are useless each other and separated in too many nested space-time levels of understanding, thus living in separated multiverses without causal interaction.

/*..and probably not even my blog posts...*/In the same way, like you're not interested about my posts. This is particularly funny, because we are interesting about same subject, at least proclamativelly. But this is a undeniable result of spontaneous symmetry breaking due the increasing information density, I cannot be informed about details of your work, I can communicate with it through phase interface only, so I'm organizing information at high level only.

Which makes a competence problem, because I've certain insight into further strategy like manager of large company, but without respect of its members. Contemporary science is based on meritocracy based on specialists with deep insight, instead of journalists with broad overview, which leads to conceptual bias - scientists don't understand the subject of their interest at intuitive level, event though such understanding can be quite trivial. They don't see forest for the trees, particularly because they're not economically motivated to do so.

In economy free market isn't enough, there alway exists an ad-hoced authority represented by central bank and government. Can science develop effectively without such forced hierarchy? Who should be arbiter of its effectiveness? That's the question.

Unfortunately I can’t offer much beyond erasing his comments, yet that would be a terrible waste of your time. The interesting thing about people such as our friend Zephir, is that as a result of their apparent lack of restraint , common courtesy and general respect for others, they move the world closer to becoming one that would form to be their greatest nightmare; being one where not only themselves yet all would be censored. So for the powers that be and all others they consider are working against them, are then supplied even more reason to have them silenced. Therefore, for someone who claims to be ruled by logic, coupled with astute observation, I find this to be in itself totally inconsistent.

/*...this background (Aether) is always described as having a homogenous or holistic in nature...*/

vs. from wikipedia source:

"He (Descartes) thought everything physical in the universe to be made of tiny "corpuscles" of matter. Corpuscularianism is a viewpoint closely related to atomism. The main difference was that Descartes maintained that there could be no vacuum, and all matter was constantly swirling to prevent a void as corpuscles moved through other matter."

What a insightfull idea! What we learned about nature of reality from 1633 A.D.?

/*...being one where not only themselves yet all would be censored...*/

As the density of people increases, public constrains would slow down spreading of ideas inconsistent with existing laws of society up to level, the evolution of further understanding will freeze like spreading of information through black hole.

Contemporary science is serving mostly like salary machine: neverending development of formal void theories without deeper understanding has replaced the practical research of cold fusion, room temperature superconductivity, antigravity phenomena, etc. Science is serving for scientists only instead of whole society.